Linux-Advocacy Digest #701, Volume #31 Wed, 24 Jan 01 11:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (Salvador Peralta)
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("MH")
Re: Why "uptime" is important. (Edward Rosten)
Re: Why "uptime" is important. (Stuart Fox)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Salvador Peralta)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("aPoLo[AGQx]")
Re: Why "uptime" is important. (Mark Styles)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (Kevin Ford)
Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: M$ websites down again ("Bobby D. Bryant")
More to an OS than GUI's (was Re: A salutary lesson ...) (Donn Miller)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 06:31:17 -0800
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "salvador peralta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > RealVideo is pathetic. That is the biggest pile of crap software I've ever
> > > seen.
> >
> > Pretty refreshing to see that the M$ FUDmeisters don't limit their FUD
> > to just open source applications.
> >
> > "Innovation 101: Copy someone else's idea, produce an inferior
> > alternative, bundle it for free with our product, and then have our
> > marketing bots and lackeys like the chads FUD the hell out of the guy we
> > stole the idea from."
> >
> > - snipped from the redmond guide to application development & product
> > marketing
>
> Nice try.
> No, really, the Real products really DO suck.
This is exactly the opposite of our company's experience. We had an
easier time embedding calls to real video streams into cross-platform
browser based documents without launching a media player. We found
that Windows media server has trouble getting launched from mac, and
indeed, does not do so by default. this behaviour is poorly
documented. Many of our clients reported that after the latest
"auto-upgrade" from microsoft that the player stopped working with many
sound cards they were using, and that the server itself is generally
more trouble to configure and less stable than the real server.
For synchronizing HTML events, we found that Avid has a product that
works without problems with real player. The support by/for Avid file
formats is an additional advantage as streams encoded on Avid, the
entertainment industry standard professional editing bay, will save
directly to formats supported by real player whereas they must be layed
off to beta and re-encoded in order to produce files of acceptable
quality for windows media player.
--
Salvador Peralta
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:39:10 -0500
> > Editing that "line of text" is, like every administrative action, not as
> > simple as it sounds.
> For people dumb enough to rely on GUIs.
Ah, yes. The old "90% of the computer using population are complete morons"
logic. The sort of reasoning mostly espoused by cola-ites. --our way, or no
way.
There is intelligent life out there, the challenges seems to be in finding
it.
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:38:10 +0000
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Nothing that a good case of W3 (www.w3c.org) won't cure. :-)
>
> Duly noted :-)
>
> >It also allows one to actually *read* the text. (Gosh, what
> >a concept!) Granted, there are some issues, such as viewing
> >pictures (usually, this is handled via an external pic viewer).
>
> Lynx either sends them to an application (usually gv or xv) or loads
> them to disk.
>
> >And I'm not sure how well it handles math expressions -- in fact,
> >I'm not sure any browser currently out there handles math
> >expressions more complicated than x<sub>j</sub><sup>2</sup>
> >very well.... :-)
>
> This is a real problem and Latex2html is no solution (all that time for
> all those little tiny graphics to load, and a _separate_ html query for
> each one!). My only way out is to leave the text HTML pages as simple
> as possible and put the write ups into ps files (no, I don't do PDF).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How come?
If you do a /usepackage{times}, the PDFs resulting from pdflatex or
latex->dvi2ps->ps2pdf display in a reasonable amount of time.
It shouldn't be much extra work.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:35:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Interesting. You couldn't have snipped a little?
A couple of things.
1. Easy on the eye format? I assume that was sarcasm - it looks like
shit on IE 5, and even worse at 640x 480. Minor point though. Viewing
preferences are very subjective. Still, if you're trying to convince
people that Linux is better, you're probably talking to people who are
running an IE browser
2. You say this: "Microsoft has completely thrown away every operating
system it wrote when it released the new one."
and:
"A small margin of compatibility exists between the previous version
but attempting to run a sophisticated application written for Windows
3.11 on a Windows 2000 box often times leads in failure as Microsoft re-
engineers everything from the ground up every time they come out with a
new operating system"
Whereas the truth of the matter is that MS spends a lot of time doing
backwards compatibility testing. The backwards compatibility is one of
the reasons Windows 9x is such a mess - legacy DOS backwards
compatibility.
You also attempt to combine the Windows NT/2000 product lines with the
WinDOS product line - not a valid combination. There are a great many
Windows 3.11 apps which wouldn't run on Windows NT 3.51, let alone
2000. However, chances are that they'll run on Windows 95.
As for having thrown away every previous version - I don't think so.
Windows NT 4.0 was based on Windows NT 3.51, and Windows 2000 is based
on Windows NT 4.0. Windows ME is based on Windows 98 which is based on
Windows 95 which in turn has a great deal of Windows 3.11 code.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 06:58:00 -0800
Chad Myers wrote:
> If you really would've looked, which I know is a stretch for you,
> you would've seen that that site keeps statistics for several hundred
> other sites. I realize that this may not be a scientific sample, but
> it's at least in the ball park +/- 5% I would say. So, giving Linux
> the benefit of the doubt, Linux is still 5%, so what?
Exactly. So what? Windows has been shipping installed on pc's in
stores for as long as it has been available as a product, and we already
know that Linux is ususally bought and installed as a server OS.
I've been using linux in a server capacity since 1995. Mandrake 7.2 is
the first time that I have finally permanently replaced windows with it
for my personal desktop ( though I have been using it as a laptop
solution for a year and a half ), and the first time that I have felt
comfortable replacing windows with it on my corporate desktop.
The speed with which linux, thanks in very large part to a heretofore
much-maligned troll-tech, has gained on windows as a desktop OS is
remarkable. In doing so, at least with the mandrake release, they have
made all the usual FUD ( tough to install, people don't want to edit
config files, ugly gui, no dnd, etc ) that we hear from people like
yourself, the other chad, and claire, very badly out of date.
Besides the obvious success that the OS has at evangalism among
developers, technically literate students, and end users, it's
stability, etc. what you should really be worried about as a winShill is
that it is easier than ever before to obtain and install development
libraries than ever, and that all of these libraries can be had at no
cost which means that the developer base is simply going to continue
growing at a faster rate than the windows developer base.
I liken this to the state of the US and Japanese Navies just after pearl
harbor. Microsoft has already missed its opportunity to bury linux, and
the productive forces of the free software and open source communities
attached to linux is simply too large for MS to compete over the long
haul ( the price it pays for keeping its users, administrators, and a
large chunk of it's developers technically illiterate ).
--
Salvador Peralta
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:15:00 -0000
On 24 Jan 2001 06:16:11 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:14:09 +0800, nuxx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So you need to get extra stuff just so you can kill apps. Yeah, really
>> >> great. And how long has UNIX been shipping with the kill command?
>> >>
>> >It's on the W2k CD under support tools. Anyone who admins W2k should
>know
>> >this.
>>
>> This is the Moron's Server OS. Why should they "need to know"?
>> Applets this tiny should just plain be installed by default.
>> Or, at the very least there should be a "admin server from
>> telnet session" option.
>
>Perhaps because we never need the kill command - Just pick the process from
>the task manager and bingo it's gone...
...assuming you're in the same room, or even the same
state as the server in question...
--
The ability to type
./configure
make
make install
does not constitute programming skill. |||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:15:39 -0000
On 24 Jan 2001 06:19:06 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On 23 Jan 2001 17:32:30 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>in
>> >> > message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >
>> >> > > And they *still* can't reliably kill a process. I tried to invoke,
>> >then
>> >> > > kill, Notepad on a very large text file (this on NT4); it took
>> >> > > several *minutes* to finally vanish. I doubt Win2k has improved
>> >> > > noticeably in this regard.
>> >> >
>> >> > Then get kill.exe or pskill.exe
>> >> > kill -f has yet to fail me.
>> >> > kill -f lsass.exe has interesting results when running as admin, btw.
>> >> > Don't try it at home.
>> >>
>> >> So you need to get extra stuff just so you can kill apps. Yeah, really
>> >> great. And how long has UNIX been shipping with the kill command?
>> >>
>> >
>> >And you need extra stuff to have a working GUI? How long has windows had
>a
>> >GUI?
>>
>> About 5 years less than Unix.
>>
>> Those abortions known as Windows 1.x and 2.x don't count.
>
>
>Then I guess the entire abortion called X can't count either - GROSS!
At least X had overlapping Windows in the 80's.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:17:36 -0000
On 24 Jan 2001 06:22:06 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:48:14 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:94kpnb$13e0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
[deletia]
>> What difference would that make?
>>
>> At best,even swallowing Microsoft's own propaganda, it
>> would only buy you faster visual connectivity on low
>> bandwidth connections.
>>
>
>What do you care about "low bandwidth" connections? Anyone connecting to a
>valuable server via 28.8 is a lame ass turkey and obviously the machine
Come join us in the real world sometime.
>isn't worth much. ugh... 56K is fast enough to run terminal services so I
>use my cellular modem no problemo.
For one thing, line conditions don't always allow one
the 'luxury' of running at 56K.
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to
build their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:23:17 -0000
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:40:19 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 06:20:40 +0200, Ayende Rahien <Please@don't.spam> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Jan Johanson wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > While little MiG tries to impress with some brochure sites...
>> >> >
>> >> > MediaWave is deploying over 3,100 windows 2000 advanced servers all over
>> >> > europe to handle multimillions of simultaneous audio and video streams.
>> >>
>> >> And your point is?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Talk about demanding! Is there even a streaming server available for
>> >linux?
>> >>
>> >> Unix would do the same capacity with 300 servers.
>> >
>> >Prove it.
>>
>> Unix supports considerably larger hardware than NT does.
>>
>> It has to do severe shared nothing clustering to achieve
>> database thruput in the same league with single machines
>> AS/400 or Unix machines.
>>
>> As the machines that run DOS have scaled up, so have the
>> machines that everyone thought DOS had obsoleted.
>
>Well, Win2K Datacenter could do it in 300 or less servers with
>a 32-way Compaq, NEC, or Unisys, but you would significantly
>increase your costs.
>
>Those 3100 servers would cost a fraction of the Unix or
>Win2K DC servers.
No they wouldn't. A serious PC based server doesn't
cost any less than more powerful RISC based hardware.
Unix servers have been price competitive for quite
some time.
>
>Also, remember, one of the points of the main servers was
>not concern of load, but regional traffic. I guess Europe
>doesn't have as good a network infrastructure, so rather
IOW, you're going to be spreading windows boxes
to the four winds. You can have that pager
thankyouvery much.
>than putting servers all in one place (which would've
>taken significantly less), they had to place them all
>over Europe to get better regional performance.
>
>Those 300 Unix servers wouldn't do very well in this
>scenario, unless you could split them in a few pieces.
Why not? Do you really think they are spreading
them across more than 300 locations?
--
Section 8. The Congress shall have power...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:30:17 -0000
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:39:10 -0500, MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > Editing that "line of text" is, like every administrative action, not as
>> > simple as it sounds.
>
>> For people dumb enough to rely on GUIs.
>
>Ah, yes. The old "90% of the computer using population are complete morons"
>logic. The sort of reasoning mostly espoused by cola-ites. --our way, or no
>way.
No, it merely reflects an aspects of common post high
school academic proficiency exams. Dealing with most
Unix config files is at worst a simple pattern matching
exercise.
>
>
>There is intelligent life out there, the challenges seems to be in finding
>it.
>
>
OTOH, the rcfiles for quite a few Unix applications
are documented to the point where you basically have
to be either really lazy or a moron not to understand
what's going on.
--
>> Yes. And the mailer should never hand off directly to a program
>> that allows the content to take control.
>
>Well most mailers can, so I guess they all suck too.
Yup.
Candy from strangers should be treated as such.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "aPoLo[AGQx]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:41:59 +0800
well said mario
------------------------------
From: Mark Styles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:22:33 -0500
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:09:15 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mark Styles wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:51:22 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> [big snip]
>> > I'm also curious what exactly you do to make Applix crash.
>>
>> Converting MS Office files (excel spreadsheets) into Applix format,
>> failed every time, sometimes dumping core, sometimes just sitting
>> there doing nothing.
>
>Liar.
>
>By definition, Converting files is NOT "doing nothing"
You don't seem to have very much constructive to say.
Converting files means taking a file of one format and putting it into
another format. Applix failed to do that. Applix was not clocking up
CPU time. The Applix conversion screen told me it was 'Converting
file', but didn't do anything. By any sane person's definition, that
is 'doing nothing'.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:53:20 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Daniel Tryba once wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Not only would they have less performance, less reliability, and
>>> less remote management capability (Win2K terminal services rocks),
>
>> Uh, no. Windows Terminal Server is a pale and slow immitation of X. You
>> can do *anything* on UI*X from a remote telnet window, so there is no
>> way Windoze can have more remote management capability. Also, windoze is
>> less reliable (I'll Quote the MTTF of 12 days).
>
>Ehhh, actually that's not quite true when you say that Terminal Services
>are slow, the protocol (RDP (I know nothing about ICA)) actually uses less
>bandwidth then X, especially trafic from the client to the
>TerminalServer is kept to the minimum. The result is that TS is faster
>than X on slow connections, on a 10+ Mbps network X feels much faster
>than TS. Ofcource telnet/ssh requires even less overhead if it was
>possible to do anything on NT in a CLI.
>
Compressed-X is nice. As is running X through ssh.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:59:21 -0000
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:22:33 -0500, Mark Styles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:09:15 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Mark Styles wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:51:22 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>> [big snip]
>>> > I'm also curious what exactly you do to make Applix crash.
>>>
>>> Converting MS Office files (excel spreadsheets) into Applix format,
>>> failed every time, sometimes dumping core, sometimes just sitting
>>> there doing nothing.
>>
>>Liar.
>>
>>By definition, Converting files is NOT "doing nothing"
>
>You don't seem to have very much constructive to say.
He does have a point.
>
>Converting files means taking a file of one format and putting it into
>another format. Applix failed to do that. Applix was not clocking up
>CPU time. The Applix conversion screen told me it was 'Converting
>file', but didn't do anything. By any sane person's definition, that
>is 'doing nothing'.
No, that's still doing something. It's certainly doing more
that just waiting around for user input. It's also something
bog obvious that can be pointed to as a culprit.
HELL, applix might even appreciate the bug report.
--
Also while the herd mentality is certainly there, I think the
nature of software interfaces and how they tend to interfere
with free choice is far more critical. It's not enough to merely
have the "biggest fraternity", you also need a way to trap people
in once they've made a bad initial decision.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:54:45 GMT
In article <2Pmb6.192560$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> > Well, if all you want is consistency, I prefer to provide it the
easy
> > way ;-)
>
> Too easy!
A tradeoff, as most things in life.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ websites down again
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:56:30 -0600
Milton wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16321.html
>
> Gee, all the winvocates keep telling me how robust NTW2K is!
Probably just a bad DNS driver, ya know.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:07:30 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: More to an OS than GUI's (was Re: A salutary lesson ...)
Salvador Peralta wrote:
> The speed with which linux, thanks in very large part to a heretofore
> much-maligned troll-tech, has gained on windows as a desktop OS is
> remarkable. In doing so, at least with the mandrake release, they have
> made all the usual FUD ( tough to install, people don't want to edit
> config files, ugly gui, no dnd, etc ) that we hear from people like
> yourself, the other chad, and claire, very badly out of date.
That's what I don't get. The purpose of fancy GUIs with DnD is to
appeal to the lowest common denominator of computer user. It's an
interface which tries to appeal to the common people. But once you've
experienced what unix can do for you, and you make that step up to a
better OS (which is Linux, FreeBSD, or Solaris, BTW), you find that you
don't need to rely on DnD or GUIs. The only place where GUIs are
absolutely necessary, IMO, are web browsers and games. Otherwise they
just function as glorified eye candy.
Not all apps need to have a GUI wrapper around them. That's why I feel
GUIs are so overrated. In fact, I find that with GUI environments, I
spend so much time pointing and clicking and selecting items from menus
that I can't get any work done. As far as DnD goes, how much time do
you really spend dragging and dropping between apps? A good percentage
of X11 toolkits have DnD, even Motif. Imagine that!
Don't get me wrong. I think the file-open dialog of Qt is pretty neat
myself. But, it accomplishes the same feat as Motif's open dialog, and
hence, adds nothing more than visual appeal. During the period when
FreeBSD was the only operating system on my machine, I found that I
actually got MORE work done than with Windows or heavily GUI oriented
environments.
This is the main reason I dislike Windows. I don't care how stable
Windows is compared to unix, I like *nix better because I can get away
from those brain-softening, sensory-overloading GUIs. It's not too much
unlike getting away from the big city and settling in to the peace and
quiet of the suburbs. I think most Linux advocates would agree with
this metaphor.
Now I'll make my exit while GUI lovers proceed to eviscerate me.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
